Talk:WriteAPrisoner.com

Concerns with article (why I reverted)
I have several concerns with the article as it currently is written. First, there are a lot of claims that are made without any supporting from reliable sources. Examples would be the claim about the number of prisoners who are included annually, the site's status as the fastest growing and largest site of its type, the site's first amendment work, and so on. It's not so much that I doubt the claims, but that they need to be sourced independently.

Second, the tone of the article sounds way too much like an ad for the site. The people at Writeaprisoner may be doing great work, but the article should just neutrally report facts, and let the reader judge. I'm particularly concerned that little mention is made of the specific criticism that the site has received.

Third, the article is very choppy. Some of the material seems to be out of place - for example, a very favorable quote from Oprah Winfrey is in the middle of the controversy section, when there is no controversy about that (at least none revealed in the article) at all. It needs some formatting and reorganization.

I attempted to rewrite the article to address some of these concerns, but this change was reverted to an earlier version with all the above problems. I have restored the version I wrote, and I ask that if a future editor wishes to revert, please discuss these concerns, and any that you have with my version, here. That way we can try to come up with a version of the article that is acceptable to all. I'm leaving this same message on talk page of the reverting editor, but since it was an anonymous IP address, the editor may not see it. Xymmax (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit
I'm all for a balanced article, and I feel that I contributed balanced content. You wiped out half the article and only added negative comments about the site. The old article contains good and bad. It seems that you just focus on the content from the negative articles. Other than eliminating almost half the reference links, all I see that you did was add a lot of "fact" links and then quote everything negative which you can find. If we're trying to be neutral, why the emphasis on the bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.30.55 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for discussing things over here. I also want to be fair. I dont think for a minute that my edits should be the last word, so I'm happy see changes.  I added the fact tags everywhere in an attempt to help.  Under Wikipedia's policies, the information in the article should ideally come from sources outside the subject.  One option when you have information that is unsourced is to delete it. I didn't want to do that, because it seems clear to me that the information is accurate, it just needed a cite. So, I added the fact tag. My plan is actually to come back and look for reliable sources that contain the information, and remove the tag.
 * Most of the other information I took out, I removed because either: 1) it wasn't clear to me what the purpose of the information was or 2) It seemed too promotional in tone. For example, I removed a couple references to specific prisoners who use WriteAPrisoner.com. To me, that had the feel of a celebrity testimonial, so I removed it.
 * As for being too negative, I'm trying to be neutral. I took the negative quote right out of a reference that all ready was in the article. That article was about half positive and half negative, and I was trying to get closer to that balance. There were other negative quotes that I did not use, but this one seemed to be representative. I will say that I realize that right now the only quotation is a negative one, and it would be best to get positive quote in the article too. My thought is to find a newspaper quote from the president of Writeaprisoner.com (instead of one from the website) and but it in for balance.  I also can see adding back in some of the other services offered by the website if they can be sourced a bit. Ok, that's enough for starters. What do you think? Xymmax (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

edits and reversions today
What exactly is wrong with the "live" version? It's pretty darn neutral. Lawrence §  t / e  21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?
Lawrence, you annihilated this entry. Someone other than these two editors should get involved. This looks much more like an attack than an edit. My opinion anyway. Has anyone bothered to read the updated and "wikified" piece that the bots automatically kill? Is there an agenda here? Something is definitely going on here. Wikipedia has enough credibility issues without so-called editors grinding an ax. Someone besides Lawrence needs to look at this. What are Lawrence's credentials, anyway? Unbelievable and unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.174.110 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, while I suspect I am the other editor to whom you refer, I must say that I find the tone of the article is far more appropriate now than previously. Still, I think you misunderstand if you accuse Lawrence of reverting your attempts to edit the article, neither of us has touched it in months. What I think is happening is that the scope of the changes that you are trying to make triggers any one of several automated programs that reverts vandalism. I'm not saying your edits are vandalism, they are not; however anonymous accounts are given far more scrutiny by the automated programs. The easiest way for you to actually get your edits through would be to register an account. After four days, your account will no longer be viewed as high risk when making large changes to articles. You can help the process even more by making a few edits to another articles - say a dozen edits or so - during the four days. After that, you should have no problem. You also may be able to make incremental changes to the article, saving each time, instead of doing it all at one fell swoop. I would encourage you to discuss your issues here, however. I have no agenda against Write-a-Prisoner.com, I just felt that original article lacked balance. It appears Lawrence is of a similar mind. 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First and second paragraphs have some redundant info
I am not that skilled of a writer or wiki editor, but the first and second paragraphs have some redundant information in them. Could stand for a little editing if anyone wants to. Pretty solid article other than that.

I'm guessing this is old, since the paragraphs seem to be unique now.

Logo
How do you upload the logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wap77 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Logo was uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.113.103 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Studies
Good article but I'd like to see more study references about the aid to inmates this service provides in the article. There are many on the site so I don't know why they can't be used on the wiki article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.113.103 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Background
Can the opening content be moved to the Background to make the Article compliant? Is there an editor who could make the appropriate changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.221.182 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on WriteAPrisoner.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2005/personals.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)